Amiya Kumar Mookerjee, J. - (1.) This rule is directed against a second show cause notice issued by the Security Officer, which is annexure H to the petition. Mr. Majumdar appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the finding of the Security Officer that as per report of SIPF he saw the RK standing near the wagon when he apprehended the criminals with the P. P. property and the RKs. which clearly goes to show that they may not have been directly involved in the theft but collusion with the criminals was there, otherwise, the theft could not have been taken place in the yard, are contrary to the finding of the enquiry officer and that "collusion with the criminals" does not find place in the charge itself. According to Mr. Majundar the disciplinary authority found the petitioner guilty of charges with which he was not charged.
(2.) Reading the second show cause notice as a whole it cannot be said that the petitioner was found guilty with respect to another charge. But even then the enquiring officer did not find any collusion with the criminals. That being so, without any evidence the disciplinary authority could not have arrived at any finding that there was a collusion between the petitioner and the other persons who were standing in front of the wagon and as a result of such collusion the theft took place. Therefore, the impugned second show cause notice which is annexure H to the petition is quashed. The Rules is made absolute to the extent as indicated above. All other points taken in the petition are left open.
(3.) The disciplinary authority within a fortnight from date shall issue a fresh second show cause notice to the petitioner. Within two weeks from the date of receipt of the second show cause notice, the petitioner shall reply to the same and on considering the reply the disciplinary authority shall pass final order. The petitioner is given liberty to save afresh, if he is otherwise aggrieved. C.R. 14254-57 (W) 175. The above order will govern all these Rules. Rule made absolute.;